Roger Pearse

Tabulate the historical sources in which you believe such a mention should appear, and explain why you think that the author 'must' mention any such event. That process will clarify things.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

rlogan

I need a name for this principle of apologia. The principle that Jesus is defined by whatever rendition can fly just under every possible radar screen.

The Invisible Jesus principle

Seems to be what you are getting at.


Josephus mentions vast numbers of persons from the mildly amusing to the pinnacles of Temple power across his various works.

And in particular when discussing details of "Sects of the Jews" he ought well mention a sect that alleged its founder was born of a virgin, etc etc. He spent a lot of time on the Essenes, for example, and a novel innovation like Christianity would surely have gotten his attention, given that his PURPOSE was writing about sects.


But of course, I understand that under the principle of the "Invisible Jesus", he is not what the gospels say he is, but rather some definition we choose that would go unnoticed by Josephus or anyone else.

And all one is doing then is begging the question. You assume there is a Jesus, and then define him to be one that escapes notice. No evidence has been used to produce this Jesus. Rather, he is the Jesus that would produce no evidence.


All the best to you too, Roger

avi

Where is the evidence that Mary said anything?
For all we know, she may have been a mute. You may profit more by seeking evidence for the color of her eyes, or for her opinions of global warming.
Mathew 1:25 In other words, according to "Matthew", whoever he was, Mary had no union with her husband Joseph prior to the birth of Jesus, however, "Mathew" does not explicitly write that Mary enjoyed union with no other human. If Joseph, not Mary, named the child, then one can justifiably claim that Mary was mute, hence, could not have stated anything.

mountainman

Dear manwithdream,

One explanation according to one "legend" was that Mary had "perpetual virginity". Whatever that means.

Best wishes,


Pete

purple_kathryn

Poor Joseph

His fiancee gets knocked up by someone else and then he doesn't ever get to have proper sex with her.

I wonder how Jesus got the brothers and sisters?

lpetrich

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary implies that she never had sex in her life, not even with her husband Joseph. In fact, some Catholics call a celibate marriage a Josephite marriage.

And believers in this doctrine claim that JC's brothers and sisters were half-brothers and half-sisters that Joseph had had in a previous marriage.

bacht

Or, the gospel writers simply copied the idea from Genesis:

And God said to Abraham, "As for Sar'ai your wife, you shall not call her name Sar'ai, but Sarah shall be her name.
I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her."
Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, "Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?"
And Abraham said to God, "O that Ish'mael might live in thy sight!"
God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
As for Ish'mael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.
But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year."

Gen 17:15-21

If Sarah was past menopause then her pregnancy would have been a miracle

There's a similar story about Hannah, the mother of the prophet Samuel

Sheshbazzar

Or, quite simply there was no real "Mary", only a fictional character in a fictional "birth narrative" story.
There were no accusations of adultery, or of blasphemy, because the fictional story character never "told" any real live public about her
"virgin birth-by the God of The Jews-begetting the Son of God" tale. And nothing is to be known beyond that -tale- as fabricated by the writer.
The writer either did not think of, or did not care to include in his story, much detail of Mary and Joseph's subsequent sex-life,
(or for that matter little realistic portrayal of this "son-of-god" having ever engaged in any normal human relationships)
No real "Mary"-then no fanciful claims + no witnesses,= no charge of blasphemy.

All imaginary, but IF there had been a real "Mary" and she -had- blabbed around that she was The Mother of The God of the Jews, and that her child was "THE firstborn Son of God", "begotten" by means of a miraculous impregnation by The God of The Jews".
She certainly would have been dragged out and stoned to death, and likely her mamzer child along with her.
So it is evident, either it is just a story that never actually happened,
or, the participants kept their mouths shut about it, contrary to scenarios revealed in the rest of the stories.

semiopen

I've heard the Samuel story was originally about Saul, there's some issue with the Hebrew where the usual naming instructions are given.

Maybe menopause was introduced with the Flood, because they say Noah was trying to have sex with his wife before the Curse of Ham.

arnoldo

Another explanation according to another "legend" was that the father of Jesus was Panthera as writen by Celsus in the second century.